Do we all agree that, notwithstanding his penchant for distant murder-by-disembodied-aerial-vehicle, not-as-surgical-as-you’d-wish-it-were, drone strikes (what I like to call a “passive-aggressive” military policy), the president’s favored foreign policy is a preference for ‘soft power’? Which is to say, don’t you think the Obama Administration’s approach to the world is to rely more on influence than on coercion? I think he (and Secretary of State John Kerry too) would say so himself. He’d much prefer (well, either of them would, I suppose) to rely on what he considers (ahem) his extraordinarily outsized powers of charm and persuasion to win over other heads of state, rather than the inelegant and clumsy use of force to dictate his way when it comes to what other countries do.

Contrast that with his approach to the issues with America’s healthcare system.

Although I disagree with the premise (a topic for another post altogether), President Obama and the Leftist technocrats with whom he finds common cause believe in the scheme of health “insurance” and feel the third-party payment system is good because healthcare (which for some reason they feel is synonymous with health insurance) is “different” and thus not to be entrusted to market forces…then again, the things in life that should be influenced by market forces is pretty limited anyway.

Anyway. From their perspective, the answer has always been that not enough of the ‘young invincibles’ were bought into the cockamamie scheme and thus not participating, pushing the cost up due to what’s called ‘adverse selection’. Not enough people willing to pay more into a system and voluntarily get less out means that the whole thing collapses under the weight of those who are taking more than they’re putting in. It’s not even economics…it’s basic physics.

Their answer to this was (and is) that more people need to abandon their own better judgment and personal motivations and jump right in. But how to achieve that?

Well, with a super-majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House in 2009 those who know better than you pushed through the ACA without a single Republican vote in either chamber. For your own good, they forced an unpopular (at the time, and downright detested now) gigantic overhaul of an enormous chunk of our economy. Let’s call that “hard power”.

Of course, we see what hath the ACA wrought: With higher premiums than before for young and healthy individuals, those needed to save the sinking ship are now even less inclined to climb aboard. So now the very solution to the problem (as the health-insurance-scheme supporters see it) is even farther out of grasp.

This struck me as ironic because now the president and his lickspittle sycophants in the press/Leftist Hollywood/sports/entertainment/etc. are reduced to begging, pleading, brow-beating, heavy-handedly imploring every 20-something to please, please, please sign up for health “insurance” through the exchange, lest the signature program of your benighted leader fall to pieces and all we’ve worked for (WE!, not me, this is about YOU and how important all that work YOU! did on the campaign for…well, yes, me, but anyway…YOU! did to get…well, yes, me, but anyway…elected so I could serve YOU, because after all, YOU are the ones YOU’VE been waiting for, and thank goodness I came along to make YOU feel special about needing ME…oh, I mean ‘me’, but anyway….) tragically succumb to the machinations of the awful powers of cynicism and the Koch brothers and Rush Limbaugh and the War on Women, and…okay, where was I going with this? Oh, right. Please sign up for health insurance and talk about it in your pajamas with your friends at your kegger parties…

The president is in an all-out campaign to get the least-likely people to sign up for health “insurance” to…sign up for health “insurance”. But if he’d done that when he was popular (and his ACA handn’t ironically increased the price of it), couldn’t he have avoided all this?

Consider: when he was elected, Barack Obama had an incredible amount of popularity and political capital (before his inauguration, his approval rating was 79%). With that, he had the power to influence and persuade. Let’s call that “soft power”. What’s ironic is that, had he chosen to use his soft power (and been successful), he may have been able to convince a ton of the 20-something sheep who voted for CHANGE! and HOPE! to actually do things (even things against their own better interest) through the influence of this “soft power”. Who knows? It may have actually kept the system afloat.

*(No, The system still would have eventually collapsed, of course, because the problem wasn’t ever that young people weren’t buying “insurance”, rather the dis-incentive for consumers to shop for, and for providers to offer prices commensurate with their actual value…well, you know how that story goes…)

This suave and persuasive dude who had just sailed into the Oval Office because he was too cool for the room and was able to exercise the lost art of subtlety was loved by damned-near everybody in the Country. He believed in The System. He realized (believed) that the problem with it was that not enough people were active participants in it. His solution? Heavy-handedly and by force, to coerce everybody into doing what he wanted them to do.

I’m often bemused (and, when in a good mood, amused) when I read someone’s online profile’s self-description of his political affiliation as “Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative.”

Really? I wonder which of his Janus characteristics weighed heavier when choosing between McCain and Obama in 2008.

Clearly there is no doubt that the fiscal conservatism took a backseat. After all, the guy who promised that energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket” and professed his desire IN PLAIN ENGLISH to “spread the wealth around” and when confronted by the economic reality that lower tax rates result in higher revenues (and vice-versa), admitted that his philosophy on taxes was more about “fairness” than bringing in revenues necessary to run the government (albeit a HUGE government he’d like to have) was—is—not a “fiscal conservative”.(more…)

Seems people are confused as to when they get their free ObamaCare. McClatchy report that there’s a lot of complication in the Stalinization of Health Care act of 2010. What a surprise.

While companies are lamenting that the legislation is going to cost them billions of dollars, and their employees hundreds of thousands of jobs, health care customers are likewise vexed by the new regime.

Now, in all fairness, the enactment of any hostile takeover large new program by the federal government would have many moving parts and lead to lots of questions. But this little part stands out:

…much of the guidance will depend on Department of Health and Human Services regulations that are still being developed.

Yes, that’s leviathon regulation. And we don’t even yet know how it’s going to flesh out.

Brings to mind two very memorable quotes from two very memorable ladies:

As President Obama signs the reconciliation portion of the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 into law this morning*, comes word from an AP analysis that young people will be getting the shaft as the new regime of mandates spreads their wealth around to their older, less-healthy fellow citizens.

Of course, we told you so.

Now, while the report caveats that the study “did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase,” it’s little consolation. What we have now is the choice between the bad of young people having to bankroll their parents and grandparents or the even worse of the entire Nation having to bankroll thier bankrolling. So would you rather young broke people or young dependent people?

President Obama won 66% of the youth vote. I suppose he hopes he can keep them ignorant of his socialist tendencies and plans to finance his utopia on thier backs. Let’s hope, for America’s sake, they’re smarter than that.

*Thought you’d get a kick out of this: Watching the ceremony with the sound off, the useless notes beneath President Obama next to the FoxNews logo read: “OBAMA: TODAY MARKS HISTORICAL MILESTONE” Funny that I misread this on first glance as “MILLSTONE”?

President Obama signed his Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 to thunderous applause this morning, and in so doing, subjugated our Nation to third-world socialist state status for the ensuing future (unless, of course, we take it back).

Happy Dependence Day.

Oh, and hope you don’t have any problems that ever need cutting edge medical technology. Byron York lines out just one of many medical device companies who will, thanks to this historic legislation, basically be run out of business. Yay, progress!

Zoll is the nation’s leading manufacturer of heart defibrillators, which save thousands of heart attack victims each year
…
“We believe that the tax will cost us somewhere between $5 million and $10 million a year,” says Richard Packer, Zoll’s chairman and chief executive officer. “Our profit in 2009 was $9.5 million.”

Fortunately, however, thanks to Obamacare, we’ll all have equal access to the defibrillators that will not exist in the future.

Yesterday we saw history made as the largest take-over by the United States government of a private industry was narrowly passed by the House of Representatives and will soon be signed by the president in the face of an overwhelming opposition from the population of the Nation and zero support from the opposing party whatsoever.

I wrote in my post right after that fateful vote that it was time for America to choose which sort of moment that was to signify. As I slept on it (and wished I hadn’t given up alcohol for Lent) last night, I started thinking about what we do next. And here’s what I’ve come up with:

Last spring we told them “No” at Tea Parties. They responded by calling us all racists.

Last summer we told them “No” at town hall meetings. They responded by calling us un-American.

Last fall, we told them “No” in voting booths in New Jersey and Virginia. And in January in Massachusetts of all places. Their response was not to reconsider their positions in the face of their clear unpopularity, but rather to redouble their efforts to find a way around us and our wishes.

And now it has come to this. We can no longer say, They’re not hearing us; we’ve been loud. We can no longer say, They’re not listening to us; we’ve been clear. The only conclusion we can come to is that they knowingly defied us, and this cannot stand. They must all be removed.

The time has come for action.

It is time now to remove these people from their offices. Every Congressman and Senator who voted in support of the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 MUST lose his or her seat this November 2d. It is imparative for the survival of our Nation.

This is not about malice. It’s not about vengence. It’s not about “teaching them a lesson.” It is simply about caring for our Union. It is the (metaphoric, mind you) watering of the tree of Liberty. (more…)

On June 3, 2008, history was made when the party that once defended slavery and stood in the way of equal rights for black Americans gave Barack Obama enough delegates to make him their nominee for President of the United States.

Never one to pass an opportunity to aggrandize himself, the completely unqualified, dearthly experienced Senator of all of four years from arguably the most corrupt political cesspool in our Nation’s history declared that that was, among other biblical things, “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.

Rightly (in both senses of the word), he was castigated, but naturally and true to his form, he remained unrelenting in his own beatified view of himself.

Five months later, almost to the day, he was elected our 44th President. And we’ve had many moments since.

Just moments ago, I watched in despair on C-SPAN as the nominally representative body of our most democratic house of Congress openly and actively spited the will of the overwhelming majority of its constituents by passing a bill that will, in effect, federalize and seize control of over 15% of our economy.

Apparently on Tuesday, we can expect President Obama (likely to little fanfare, owing to his acknowledgment that what he is doing is so anathema to the will of those from whom he derives his current position, not to mention the Constitution to which he swore his defense) will sign this insult to liberty into law.

That, my friends, will be a moment to remember.

It will be the moment that our representative form of government will have ceased to exist. It will be the moment that those who deign to represent us in our Legislative and Executive Branches have chosen their own will over that which is clearly ours.

It will be the moment our Nation, whose Founders viewed legitimate government as “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is now unquestionably ruled by a political class who exercises its power in spite of the governed.

It will be the moment we look back on, ten, twenty, forty years from now, when, in hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt, facing tens of trillions of dollars of costs due to this social experiment, we think: What the hell happened to America, anyway?

It will be the moment when, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the knowing and purposeful execution of innocent unborn human life was bankrolled by taxpayer dollars, a move, according to a November 2008 Zogby poll, opposed by 71% of Americans.

OR

It can be the moment our so-called “representatives” in government finally begin to hear from us.

It can be the moment they look back on in less than 8 months and see as the galvanizing moment when Americans decided to take back their Nation from them.

It can be the moment that people who have been involved in Tea Parties and town hall meetings begin to take real action by RUNNING FOR OFFICE to replace these scoundrels who currently entrench themselves in the ivory halls of OUR government.

It can be the moment that those who were elected by We The People begin to FEAR the People and what we will do to them come November 2, 2010.

It can be the moment we look back on in ten, twenty, forty years, and reflect on a new birth of American Independence and self-reliance. A new birth of a Nation governed by people who hold true to the ideals of our Founders that our government return to “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

It can be the beginning of the end of the “long train of abuses and usurpations” of our current unrepresentative elected officials, and the day Americans once again dedicated themselves to the prospect that “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

So much for Obama’s Apology Tour and bowing before world leaders. Americans aren’t buying it. He has become Jimmy Carter II. (PS – This is JAMES CARVILLE’s polling firm.)

A new Democracy Corps-Third Way survey provides a wake-up call for President Obama, his party, and progressives on national security.

The national mood continues to sour, with the share who see the country headed in the wrong direction moving up 4 points since mid-January, up to 62 percent, the highest mark in a year. The survey also shows concerns about the economy continuing to grow. And even though the Republican brand remains badly damaged, with no improvement in favorable ratings for their party, the GOP continues to gain ground in a named congressional ballot, with the Democratic House candidate now narrowly lagging by 47 to 44 percent. The movement away from Democrats is especially strong among independents, and independent women in particular.

Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the “prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects.”

[W]e see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges. As public hopes about the Obama presidency rose and peaked, the gap all but vanished. Last May, Democracy Corps found Democrats essentially tied with Republicans (41 to 43 percent) on the question of which party would do a better job on national security.

But now the gap shows signs of re-opening, with Democrats trailing by 17 points, 33 to 50 percent on which party likely voters think would do the better job on national security. The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin.

Hey, I hate to say this. But we told you so. Welcome back to reality, America. Let’s hope our majority perception of Obama Democrats’ security weakness doesn’t translate into a real threat being ignored by Holder & Gestapo Janet. The nation is truly run by September 10th’ers.

An incredible outcome of the most recent CNN poll, released today. The headline will likely be that President Obama’s approval rating may have hit its floor, stuck at 49%. Also of some note, the generic Democrat/Republican leaning is still a bit to the right (within the margin of error), so not much news there, either. People don’t like Congress, but despise Republicans a little bit less than Democrats. Small consolation, and in any case, yadda yadda.

UPDATE: As I’d have imagined, the online story over at CNN.com in paragraph 11 out of a 13 paragraph story, makes a passing reference to this shocking number. Dare I torture myself by watching The Situation Room to see if it makes it on the air?

UP-UPDATE: Never let it be said that I’m not fair: Wolf mentioned this result as the second one from the poll in his reading of the story just now at the top of the hour. David Gergen even went into deapth with it. Credit where it’s due, and I’m grateful I don’t have to watch the whole show now!

So now it seems President Obama, so helpful in delivering victories in New Jersey and Virginia last year, and coming off the landslide success he helped bring Democrats in Massachusetts last month is heading West to help ailing Senators in my neck of the woods.

If I could speak on behalf of the challengers to Senators Bennet in Colorado and Reid in Nevada: “Thank God!”

Also, since all my Leftist friends always seem so eager to tout the importance of intelligence in elected officials (who better, of course, to run every aspect of our lives than the elite brainiacs), might I say that, with the recent track-record of President Obama “helping” Democrats in their quest for office, anybody foolish enough to feel he’s the answer to a win likely doesn’t fall into the category of super-smart anyway, so perhaps it all does work out in the end.

Why would this be happening? Ya think maybe the Era of “hopeandchange” is wearing thin?

GALLUP.com: Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Job losses in the USA have gone up significantly SINCE Obama signed his “stimulus package”UPDATE from USA TODAY:Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they’ve hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That’s helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report. During that time, the ranks of the nation’s unemployed increased by nearly 4 million, Labor Department statistics show.

There has been no significant progress on gay rights since Obama took the oath of office. And Obama shares the same view on gay marriage as President Bush. And Dick Cheney is more progressive on gay marriage than Obama is.

Obama is responsible for more government spending than all of his previous Presidents’ spending combined

The only political violence in 2009 has come from left-wing radicals, not conservatives

Gitmo will still be open in February 2010

Transparency by the Obama Administration is a hollow talking point, not policy

We have still not withdrawn from Iraq, despite the withdrawal agreement that President Bush reached with the Iraqi government

Obama is getting the same intelligence from the same intelligence agency on Iran that Bush did on Iraq

Based on a variety of public polling, Obama is the most divisive President since Richard Nixon

No American President in this nation’s history has ever so frequently expressed his sorrow at being its leader

It seems a standard fallback position for defenders of the President to resort to the argument he first used in the early days of Administration when facing resistance from elected Republicans to the “so-called stimulus.” They merely repeat the mantra that he won.

To be sure, he did win. But, if his victory means he is entitled to win passage of all his legislative initiatives, well, then, let’s first have all these folks apologize for blocking George W. Bush’s proposals in 2005-06 and move immediately to confirm all the federal judges he nominated.

Just because a candidate wins election doesn’t mean the majority (or plurality, in some cases) who backed him favors every policy he puts forward. And anyway, in our republican form of government, the legislature must first approve said policies.

Many Democrats are balking at the president’s latest proposals because they recognize that the American people don’t show the same enthusiasm for Obama’s policies as they once did for Obama the candidate. In order to generate that enthusiasm, he distinguished himself from the freespending Republican incumbent.

Yes, he proposed new spending schemes, but did so in the context of a “net spending cut.” He was going to pay for new programs by cutting existing ones. But, when he assumed office, he proposed new federal programs while increasing the outlays for existing ones. Obama’s ability to win over wavering independent voters was contingent on his commitment to reining in federal spending (that he continues to talk about holding the line of federal spending shows that he still recognizes the power of this notion).

In short, he convinced a majority of the American people to back his candidacy by making clear that the change advocated was not radical and the spending increases he proposed would be paid for with spending cuts. That he has not delivered on those promises show his current actions at odds with his electoral mandate. They show as well why he is losing favor with the American people.

Up until today, it seemed that whenever I walked, wherever I drove in Los Angeles, I would spot a car (or two or three or four or many, many more) sporting an Obama bumper sticker. But, yesterday, something strange happened.

I drove for thirty minutes — on my way to dine with a friend in Calabasas –without seeing a single Obama sticker. And then I saw one; that would be the only one I saw all evening, even on my drive back, cutting from the 101 freeway across the heart of Hollywood.

Maybe, as people see just how much this Democrat plans on expanding government, they’re having second thoughts.

The times they might be a-changing, even in liberal Los Angeles.

UPDATE: This looks like a good post to share a photo I snapped a few weeks ago on the way to class. I was surprised and amused to see a “NIXON/AGNEW” sticker on a car that didn’t look 30+ years old to me. This really isn’t about anyone’s views on the late Prez and Veep, just that because they served so long ago seeing a bumper sticker for them struck me as being a lil’ unusual this day and age. – John (Average Gay Joe)

“Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media,” Martha Gillis wrote to the Washington Post. “Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?”

Gillis’ nephew, Lt. Brian Bradshaw, 24, died in Kheyl, Afganistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Bradshaw, of Steilacoom, Wash., was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division in Fort Richardson, Alaska. He was one of at least 13 U.S. soldiers to die in Afghanistan since Jackson’s death on June 25.

Rasmussen’s new poll, taken before the release of June’s unemployment numbers, shows significant slippage for Barack Obama on the economy, his central issue. Only 42% of American voters give him excellent or good marks on handling the economy, the lowest ratings he has yet received. His personal approval rate has fallen to 53%.

The demographics of his decline portend more bad news for Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress. Only the youngest voters support him on fiscal policy, and only barely, 52%-46%. Every other age demographic above 30 years of age has majorities now showing disapproval. Independents have begun to run away in massive numbers; they now oppose him 75%-23%, a huge break away from Obama and a sign that his supposed moderate stances have been exposed as shams. Every income level except the lowest also has majorities disapproving of his handling of the economy. Voters outside the “political class” oppose Obama 65%-33%.

Obama doesn’t fare well on national security, either. Rasmussen reports that Obama only has 44% approval on these issues, and 55% opposing him. Majorities of both women and men view him disfavorably. Every income level has majorities opposed to Obama, and independents disapprove 68%-31%. Obama only wins within the $60K-$75K income level; even his base of support among the lowest income earners narrowly reject Obama’s national-security policies, 52%-47%.

Obama isn’t just coming back to Earth in the polling. He’s losing independents and demonstrating his radical bent on policy, and more and more Americans have begun to see it.

Perhaps the grown-ups in America are waking up before it is too late. The awakening will only increase over the July 4th weekend as talk of our shared economic disaster will trump Michael Jackson around the patio.

It is now often thought that Churchill became prime minister because of the success of the German blitzkrieg, which produced the strategic catastrophe against which he had warned throughout the appeasement years. It is ironic, in retrospect, to perceive that the appeasers were brought down by their mishandling of the comparatively insignificant sideshow in Norway, leaving Churchill toinherit the catastrophe he had argued so long to avert, during the first hours of its unrolling.

Emphasis added.

In May of 1940, Wintson Churchill inherited a crisis far worse than would Barack Obama nearly sixty-nine years later. Not just that, repeatedly throughout the 1930s, that great man had warned of just such a catastrophe and had urged his colleagues in Parliament to take action to avert the crisis–on numerous occasions.

By contrast, while then-Senator Obama did write one letter expressing concern about the mortgage mess, he never proposed (or even signed onto) legislation designed to avert the financial meltdown. Churchill thus had more reason to whine about the crisis he had “inherited,” but never did. Churchill warned repeatedly before the catastrophe. Obama whines repeatedly after he was elected in large part because Americans had better confidence in him to deal with the consequences of the catastrophe.

Maybe Obama should ask our friends across the pond to return the bust of Churchill he recently returned to he can ponder the last lion‘s lesson of leadership.